What Ails Us

by Kung Fu Zu1/14/16
The recent exposure of the rape and molestation of hundreds, if not thousands, of European women has touched a nerve in Europe. It would appear that many Europeans are finally awakening to the existential threat which is facing them.

Sadly, I believe West Europe might be too far gone with the madness of “multiculturalism”. This virus was injected into Western Civilization by the communists, especially those traitors of the “Frankfurt School”.

But the communists could only do this because the West lost faith in its cultural and religious foundations. We now see the results of this loss of faith in the not-so-slow demographic death of Europe. With only materialism to believe in, the welfare state became the “God” of the populous. Ever increasing payments from the government to the people were used to buy votes without any thought for the future. Payment of this bill is now coming due and there are not enough indigenous Europeans to support the ballooning number of retirees. There is no “younger” generation coming along. Thus the insane policies allowing Christian Europe to be overrun by third world Muslims are imposed by their elites. It would seem Europe has lost the will to exist.

We are not too far behind, but still have time to learn from the mistakes of our mother continent. One can only pray we act swiftly and decisively.

—

However, some Europeans are waking up. Check out this YouTube video for an example.

35 Responses to What Ails Us

Ross Douthat has an excellent article in the New York Times (unlike David Brooks, he hasn’t been co-opted by the liberal miasma there, at least not yet) that was linked to at Hot Air. In this he discusses several concerns regarding immigration and especially the toxic problem of multiculturalism. He also notes that the US is in a better position than Europe so far, but that merely means we aren’t as close to becoming the dystopian future laid out by Jean Raspail (a name Douthat doesn’t mention, of course; it’s hard to imagine a New Yorker citing him). The link is:

I read about what appeared to be a coordinated raping of Europeans by Muslims. And all I can say is, “You go, Jihadists.”

Have I lost my mind? Well, not yet. But if it takes a few rapes to wake Europeans up, that would be far preferable to, say, the nuking of Paris, London, or Berlin.

Mr. Kung, I think you have hit the essence of it. We have lost faith in our culture. You and I understand how this happened. It was in large part because of the slow drip, drip, drip of the corrosive poison of Cultural Marxism. And we’re both scratching our heads at how people could have been temped by such an imbecilic doctrine.

I have my ideas on that — ideas that will gain me no fans here or anywhere else. But the deed was done and it seems as if it will be damned difficult to undo it.

But perhaps one way for silly and superficial Europeans to understand that there is a difference between Muslims and the traditional Western ethic is to be physically raped and abused. It’s no guarantee that they’ll snap out of it, for I do believe that liberalism is a mental disorder (and a moral disorder as well).

Do I cheer for the raping of stupid European women? No. And yet we’re always told by the feminists that “no means no.” If so, why do they keep saying “yes” to these barbarians by flooding their culture with them?

I think part of the problem is ignorance. Most people fail to understand that a culture isn’t merely a few works of art/music/literature, nor does it simply mean what type of food you cook. It also means basic notions of right and wrong — but too many people, influenced by ignorance and by the notion that “we’re all alike” (which is true, but only to a very limited extent), fail to realize that Western civilization triumphed because of various advantages in its culture.

One of the problems is our own prosperity. I’ve had opportunity lately to come face to face with “the greatest generation” and although they beat the Nazis and the Imperial Japanese, they were the ones who raised this crop of red diaper doper babies. Why and how did this come to pass?

Like I said, I think to some extent our post-war prosperity has been our downfall. We just supposed that things were naturally this good, that there was no structure underneath that needed to be minded and maintained.

Or maybe it’s something else. Whatever the case may be, a once great and powerful nation somewhat consciously adopted the policies and mindset of Marxism. We were content to bash ourselves as if it were a necessary penance for having it so good. And that, perhaps more than anything, betrays the liberal mindset.

You just said something that I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone else actually say, and yet it’s something I wonder about a lot. How exactly did the Greatest Generation raise the red diaper doper babies?

I’m blessed that my WWII generation grandparents are still here and doing well. And my mom is one of the earliest boomers. She is (and was) far from what you would think of as a 60’s radial flower child, but is now staunchly and insanely democrat. My grandparents are just staunchly, but not insanely, democrat.

It is truly a mystery to me how they can be so completely committed to a party that is so antithetical to most of what they believe. It wasn’t too long ago that the scourge of abortion seemed to be their number one political issue. Now it doesn’t seem to matter. What seems to have changed is that the southern conservative democrat has gone away. Now you have to pick whether you’re anti-abortion, or pro-democrat.

I can’t fully understand it, but I’ll posit my working theory. I think they are single-issue voters. It’s tempting to think of WWII as the defining event of the lives of that generation, but I believe that the Great Depression was far, far more influential. They were children and teens of the Depression, but young adults of the war.

The Depression was a hugely traumatic event for these children, and they were determined not to repeat it, and to instill in their children the importance of not repeating it. Unfortunately, there was FDR. Coming off of the victory of WWII, he was seen as a great and wise leader, and his great and wise leadership not only won the war, but ended the depression. Ergo, his depression policies were great and wise and to be emulated in the future. Oh, and republicans=wall street=cause of depression=EVIL!

This view of the world was further cemented by two further critical events. For the RDDB’s, a very popular and charismatic Kennedy was assassinated, locking in their impressionable young minds Kennendy=good, Nixon=Bad.

In the 1970’s something again happened to the WWII generation. As they were entering their 50’s, when normally their sense of conservatism would be fully formed and functional, American manufacturing collapsed. Now, after a nearly full career where they earned a generous pension, many found themselves out of work and their pension gone with the bankruptcy of their former employers. And adding insult to injury, along came massive inflation to eat away at the pensions that did still exist. Suddenly, social security was not just a nice idea, it was salvation. And the young adult RDDB’s saw this.

All this leads to a single issue being paramount in these two generations – providing for the poor. And that is what democrats say they do.

But this leaves many questions unanswered. Democrats are also quite good at producing the poor, but this doesn’t seem to matter. Why is there such across the board assent to (or rationalization of) everything the party does, rather than an attitude of holding one’s nose in the voting booth to effect a calculated prioritization? Where did the hedonism and perversion of the 60’s come from? How are cold-war children so blind to marxism? Most importantly, how can my generation and the ones following understand the problem and right the course?

I would think the manufacturing collapse was later, but this overall seems quite reasonable. One might think of Michael Douglas’s unnamed protagonist in Falling Down, driven crazy by losing his job in a defense plant.

I was thinking of my own grandfather who lost his auto parts job about the time I started school around ’76. That would make him 53. His plant may have been one of the first to go, though.

I think my other grandfather retired from a chemical plant around the same time, but I don’t know if he was forced out by economics or it was voluntary. My memories from that time are obviously a little fuzzy.

Bell, I agree. I do think the perception of FDR did much to foster Big Government. It may be as simple as that. And once someone is dependent upon government in any way, it seems people become automatic apologists for the government…no matter what that government is doing. The idea of “eternal vigilance” is thrown out the door and instead people work overtime to rationalize all the crazy stuff that government does because if they didn’t it would sort of saw off the governmental limb they are already sitting on.

Thanks for your profound thoughts on all that. I believe there are other primary causes such as feminism and the income tax amendment. And I do think the Kennedy/Nixon dynamic amplified it, as you noted.

And I think TV has earned a large measure of the blame. It has helped to raise a shallow, distracted, and short-attention-span populace — and one that has veered sharply toward a juvenile mindset and juvenile tastes.

I love reading your writing because whether I agree or disagree (or neither…just taking it in and letting it settle), you write in a style that is easy to peruse. It’s a smart yet conversational style (one that I urge others to adopt). You’re not over-stuffing each sentence as if it was a formula balancing on five theories at once that all have to work out to the last syllable.

I think calling those dependent on government “automatic apologists” for it goes a bit too far. Many are, but not all of them. Elizabeth and I are both largely dependent on Social Security (she at least has some dividend income; most of my savings were used up during my years of unemployment), but neither one of us is an apologist for government. (And if I start to become one, you are free to warn me of what’s happening.)

My working theory, Timothy, is that more often than not, your reflexive government apologists have been corrupted by government and/or are dependent upon government. I might be right or wrong. But I think I’m right.

And pointing out that you are an exception to the rule is fine. I believe you are. And there are many reasons that people have bought into the noxious “Progressive” shtick. People are indoctrinated in this stuff while they are in college, far away from government assistance (aside from any assistance with student loans).

But the socialist mentality now prevails. We have a president who has likened self-responsibility as “everyone out for themselves.” Imagine that. An American president demonizing people who act responsibly by first and foremost running their own lives. We live now with Pajama Boy as the norm, the emasculated American male who can’t possibly get by without daddy (more properly, “mommy”) government to wipe his noise and wipe his bottom.

But that’s where we are. And once that dependency infection is injected into the mainstream, everyone finds an angle. Big Government corrupts people. That you have not been corrupted is a fine thing. But I don’t think it changes the nature of what Big Government does to a society.

Another thing that I think we have to face, Mr. Kung, is that we have become a pagan culture. Not a godless culture, for the Left has its share of gods — all earthly, thus the pagan moniker.

And their “thou shalt nots” are equally earth-bound — completely materialist, if not hedonistic, in origin. Thou shalt not harm Mother Gai. Thou shalt not make (transcendent) judgments of others (but earth-bound ones such as environmental crimes are allowed). Thou shalt not achieve more than another (for the values system rooted in nothing more than the physical has no other way to value anything).

It’s a strange brew, this Cult of Leftism, but it is the reigning religious influence in the Left…even infiltrating Christianity to the degree that many “Christians” more than deserve those quote marks around their name.

Actually, liberal moral judgments are based on political identity, not behavior. To be sure, they’d happily trash any polluting Ted Cruz does — but only because they already bash him for his views. Liberals complain about a rape epidemic — but never when it’s a liberal, or a member of a liberal client group (Muslims, for example). They prate of their concern for the environment, but are far worse polluters than conservatives who disagree with them. They will object to Mormons voting against recognizing homosexual marriage, but not Muslims or blacks.

Actually, liberal moral judgments are based on political identity, not behavior.

You mean “black lives matter” no matter that perhaps a black egregiously broke the law? Yes. You said it. The Left has “group ethics,” not individual responsibility. And *we* conservatives are the ones called racist.

Well, Martin Luther King day is coming up, a day I don’t take very seriously. Not because of King but because it’s yet another Federal holiday where I work (I don’t mind) while government workers get to freeload. But he may have been the last prominent black on the Left who thought personal responsibility was the way to go (“not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”).

No conservative worth his or her salt disagrees with that or has ever disagreed with that. But that concept is highly controversial today.

Black lives don’t matter. But black grievance does. That is generally true of all things on the Left. They have Grand Political Views®. But as to actual individual behavior, that is secondary. If you support The Cause, you’re good…even if you are a scoundrel by any normal measure.

One might note that many black activists (such as Jesse Jackson) used to be pro-life. Then they became involved with Democratic Party politics, and switched to Molochite. This says a great deal about them, of course (particularly since they tend to be, or claim to be, religious and many are preachers). But it also says much about the black activism and the Democratic Party of the past 30 years or so.

Do you suppose that Jesse Jackson ever held any belief with much conviction other than his own fame, wealth, and power? I think there are a whole bunch of holes that can be punched into Martin Luther King. But I do think much of his message was good and was certainly presented with no small risk to himself.

On the other hand, Jackson impresses me as the kind of demagogue who sticks his finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. He’s a rabble-rouser, not a leader.

Yes, one could say that black activism, as so much of the liberal “activism” since the 60’s, has been corrupted. It has been. But I also believe much of it was corrupt to begin with. As long as the hippies could indulge themselves in sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll, they were willing to be the useful idiots for the Cultural Marxists whose entire purpose was to corrupt our society. They’ve succeeded remarkably.

I finally got a chance to watch that video, Mr. Kung. Wow. That guy is no Pajama Boy. I agree with everything he says. The only glaring omission is the ultimate cause of all this.

Leftism/socialism/Progressivism/atheism/multiculturalism has wiped out Europe’s desire to defend itself. Into this vacuum (with the help of these suicidal doctrines) creeps the evil of Islam. Yes, by all means point out that Islam is incompatible with humane, just, and prosperous ways of living. That is all true. But the rot started with Marx. There’s a “physician, heal thyself” aspect to this.

That led me to watch it too (I don’t know why I didn’t originally, but perhaps I first read the article during Rush Limbaugh or some other time when it was very inconvenient to watch the video). I suppose there was a good reason why Jean Raspail had Switzerland as the last holdout in Europe. I rather liked his use of Martin Luther’s famous quote (“Here I stand. I can do nothing else.”).

The guy made a lot of good points in that video. But at this point I think it’s going to be very difficult for Europeans to walk it back. How do you say no to the barbarians when you’ve been programmed with the idea that there is strength in “diversity”?

Until Europeans can come face-to-face with the multicultural poison and realize that tolerance of intolerance is at the very least destructive, if not insane, then I don’t know how they will be able to ground the idea of kicking Muslims out of their country which is what needs to happen. But unless it is propelled by a renewal and reacquaintance with traditional Western values it will be the equivalent of moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic. Great, you’ve stemmed the barbarian tide from without. But what will you do about the even more dangerous Marxists from within?

Until they are able to remove the smiley-face from what is sold under a number of nice-sounding labels, Europe is lost, with or without the help of the barbarians.

But what will you do about the even more dangerous Marxists from within?

I was recently reading posts on an article at “The Daily Telegraph” and ran into a true believer. The woman spouted Marxist slogans like a sophomore who had just read “Communist Manifesto” and had recently heard of Gramsci to boot.

In response to someone asking her how she and her comrades would handle the invading Muslims, she said that they would be taken care of just like the Christians had been taken care up. According to her, the culture of Christian Europe had been transformed by her and her comrades in the last 70 years and they would be able to do the same to the Muslims.

We must understand this. The Left works with Muslims because they see Christian culture to be the main enemy. It is not all about money. It is about destruction of the culture. The rest will follow.

Because of their history, the Swiss have a different view of government than the rest of Europe. This is particularly the case of the original Swiss German speaking Cantons which broke away from Habsburg control over seven hundred years ago.

Each Canton and community has a lot of autonomy. Important decisions are made by popular vote. I have personally attended the yearly meeting of a good sized Swiss town where votes were made by hand in the main town square.

To become a Swiss citizen, a person must be accepted by a community first. It is not done on a national basis. And believe me, the Swiss are not so easy to get to close to. It takes time.

It would be helpful if our leaders did not keep making stupid mistakes in dealings with Muslim lands. The link below is to the first of a three part article by Dr. A. Codevilla. I agree with all he says, but would add the fact that Gulf money, mainly Saudi, has corrupted American politics for about the last forty years. I am certain all American policy regarding this area has been influenced by this fact.

An interesting piece. Part of the problem is that so many people inside the Beltway think they’re smarter than they are, and above all smarter than the rubes, which makes it hard to learn from their mistakes. Another part is that those same Beltway types long ago came to see themselves as “citizens of the world” rather than Americans, and thus no longer concern themselves with the US national interest.

Part of the problem is that so many people inside the Beltway think they’re smarter than they are

Over the years, I have run into many Americans whose only real contact with the world has been the yearly vacation to some tourist location. They then think they understand the world.

These types would, after a week or two of traveling in Asia, start explaining how I needed to do business in Asia. Of course I had no idea how to do business in Asia as I had only lived there for years. What did that count against their two weeks experience plus their genius?

Anthony Burgess, in his “Malayan Trilogy” has an example of this type of person who came burst onto the world scene especially after WWII.

He is some kind of American linguistic expert who does not speak Malay, but tells all the British colonial officials (who were required to learn the language fluently) about the language.

The title reads in English, “Criminal North Africans A Long Protected State Secret”. The next line reads, “They steal, drink, molest women. Out of fear of inciting xenophobia, police and politicians have kept quiet for years about the problem of North Africa migrants. Until now.”

This is another example of what Dr. Codevilla has written regarding our elites pissing on the rest of us.

I suspect being subjected to the regime’s lies, for over 70 years in the case of the ex Soviets and for almost 45 years for the rest of Eastern Europe, honed the people’s sense for verbal bullshit and cured citizens of any PC proclivities they may have had.

Speaking of what ails us, I have deactivated the “Subscribe to Comments” WordPress plugin. This is the feature that allows for email notifications if you specifically subscribed to that. But this hasn’t been working right. I’m getting subscribed to everything and every time I delete these subscriptions they just come back.

If this feature is important to anyone, let me know and I’ll try an alternative. But do speak up one way or another please.

Sonny Bunch has a review of The Witch today at the Washington Free Beacon, arguing that it’s a tale of the radicalization of children rather than the standard witch hunt tale (which has upset a lot of liberals, who wanted the latter since it would allow them to feel superior to Christians again). He argues that this is actually a much more serious concern today. The link is:

Apparently Bush as dropped from the race, Hillary won in her caucus out west, and Trump won in South Carolina. Here’s some interesting analysis.

Ted Cruz won the Iowa caucus and ought to be able to win Texas, the state he represents as a senator, on March 1. The problem for Cruz going forward is that there was no state better constituted for Cruz—who is running as the hard-right religious-conservative candidate—to win again than South Carolina. It was a bad night for him.

I have to agree, with Trump winning a libtard Northeast state and now a (presumably) more bible-belt state like South Carolina, it’s probably all over but the shouting. In effect, South Carolina was a referendum on Trump’s many bizarre recent statements. They haven’t seem to hurt him. It’s sort of the Mussolini effect. People just want a “strong man.”

I thought the NY Post article another side door attempt to boost Rubio. This is the first contest in which Rubio came in even second, so he has not shown much strength till now. But there is a theoretical chance that Bush’s and Kasich’s followers could go to Rubio. If they do, that could make Trump somewhat sorry that he did so much to damage Cruz.

Still, there is no doubt that Trump is is the driver’s seat. Unless all of Bush’s as well as Kasich’s supporters move to Rubio, post haste, Trump could have this pretty well tied up by the end of March.

I disagree with Podhoritz’s analysis re Cruz. He should do well in Texas and might do pretty well in the other southern states which will be on line shortly. That being said, I don’t think anyone can beat Trump.

As to the Fortune article, he says nothing we haven’t been saying at ST for some months. The anger out there is palpable.

I think that’s only part of it. According to the exit polls, Trump did well among those who want “change”, among those who think the GOP leadership betrayed them, and overwhelmingly among those who want someone who “tells it like it is”. I think FNC got it right in seeing him as a protest candidate. There have been many such in US presidential campaign history. Trump may become the first to win.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.